Aludi Technologies (Pty) Limited v Vaghela (J3466/02) [2003] ZALC 155 (18 March 2003)

45 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review of arbitration award — Application to set aside order of Labour Court — Respondent not notified of set down date — Proper explanation for absence of papers provided — Court emphasizing leniency towards unnotified respondents — Order of previous court rescinded without costs.

Sneller Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J3466/02
2003.03.18
In the matter between
ALUDI TECHNOLOGIES (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
and
L J VAGHELA Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. In   this   matter   an   application   was   brought   by   the  
applicant, Aludi Technologies (the respondent), to set  
aside the order made by the Labour Court on 10 October  
2002.   In  terms   of  that   order  Ndlovu   J  made   the  award  
issued   by   a   commissioner   of   the   Commission   for  
Conciliation,   Mediation   and   Arbitration,   dated   8   July  
2002,   an   order   of   court.   The   respondent   was   not  
notified   of   the   date   of   set   down.   I   am   aware   of   the

rule   that   the   registrar   is   not   obliged   to   notify   the  
respondent of set down where the respondent has never  
given   an   indication   that   it   wishes   to   oppose   a  
particular matter.
1. 1. 2. In   this   matter   I   am   satisfied   that   there   is   a  
proper   explanation   before   me   for   the   absence   of   such  
papers.   The   applicant,   who   resides   in   a   different  
province,   sent   its   papers   by   courier   which   did   not  
reach   their   destination.   I   also   wish   to   note   that   in  
this court, judgments are too often set aside. However,  
the legislature thought it fit to design a remedy for a  
harsh   rule   to   ameliorate   or   rectify   the   situation  
created where the registrar is not obliged to notify a  
respondent   who   has   not   put   papers   before   the   court  
within a certain time of the date of hearing. Because  
of   this   inroads   of   this   rule   into   the   audi   alteram  
partem  rule judges of this court are generally lenient  
towards   respondents   who   have   not   accordingly   been  
notified.
3. In the circumstances I make the following order:
1. The   order   of   Ndlovu   AJ,   dated   10   October   2002,   is  
rescinded.
2. There is no order as to costs.

_______________
_
E. Revelas